Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   David Frum on today's SCOTUS ruling: "this a Waterloo, brought about by a dangerous combination of ideological frenzy, poor risk calculation, and a self-annihilating indifference to the real work of government"   (thedailybeast.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, David Frum, U.S. Supreme Court, Waterloo, repeal, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

7996 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Jun 2012 at 5:01 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-06-28 03:20:18 PM  
it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.
 
2012-06-28 03:25:32 PM  
I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.
 
2012-06-28 03:37:45 PM  

Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.


Which is exactly why it is a defeat for the GOP. The last thing they want is something that benefits ALL Americans.
 
2012-06-28 03:45:37 PM  
Watching today's GOP is like watching the T1000 in its death throes at the foundry.
 
2012-06-28 03:48:51 PM  
Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

The problem is that his political movement went completely insane around him.
 
2012-06-28 03:50:28 PM  

palladiate: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.


That's not ironic; that just shows how f*cked up the political system really is today.
 
2012-06-28 03:54:30 PM  

Dinki: The last thing they want is something that benefits ALL Americans.


Unfortunately, this is true.
 
2012-06-28 03:56:31 PM  

www.tnr.com

 
2012-06-28 03:56:37 PM  

FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.


Yup they went all in on a handful of nuthin' and got smoked by Obama's pair of sevens. Freaking stupid waste of everybody's time.
 
2012-06-28 03:57:27 PM  
This decision is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
 
2012-06-28 03:58:39 PM  
Worse, any replacement of the law's popular elements will require financing. But where is that money to come from? New taxes are unacceptable.

that's what's really gonna fark Romney.

As long as Romney and the GOP says no taxes for those provisions, Obama will be able to say they want to end those provisions. Romney will be stuck denying the popular parts of the bill, or pissing off the Grover norquist fanclub.
 
2012-06-28 03:59:22 PM  
I think the ruling is more of a Dancing Queen.
 
2012-06-28 04:04:02 PM  

JerseyTim: I think the ruling is more of a Dancing Queen.


John Roberts to America: "Take a chance on me."
 
2012-06-28 04:04:56 PM  

JerseyTim: I think the ruling is more of a Dancing Queen.


I always liked "Lay all your love on me". I like the synth parts and the chorus.
 
2012-06-28 04:06:16 PM  
David Frum is a sane conservative.

In other words, a traitor commie RINO.
 
2012-06-28 04:07:15 PM  
Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.
 
2012-06-28 04:10:16 PM  

palladiate: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.


Except for the black Democrat being the one who signed it. The GOP has been on full-court press shiat themselves to defame and possibly oust Obama mode since he got elected, trampling over each other to say the most ridiculous and outrageous thing they can, whether it totally contradicts their stated beliefs or not.

These are the people that a sizable portion of America wants back in power, making all the decisions.

And they are wrong on EVERYTHING.

I cite Steven Weber, who played Brian Hackett on the sitcom "Wings" several years ago:

Has Reaganomics ever really 'trickled' downwards?

Has cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans ever resulted in those same Americans generously reinvesting their profits back into the economy? (Please state examples.)

Has a reduction in regulations ever encouraged industries to police themselves in regards to their environmental impact? (Please cite specifics.)

Has disbanding unions ever increased and/or made more secure workers' wages and benefits? (Facts, please, mister.)

Has the institutionalization of Judeo-Christian values ever made our nation more secure, its citizens more responsible, its culture more caring?

Has dismantling health services geared toward helping the poor, the elderly and women resulted in less poverty, less sickness, lower health costs or fewer unwanted pregnancies?

Has a large reduction in taxes ever resulted in less class disparity and better roads, more emergency responders, cleaner national parks and improved the infrastructure?


It is seriously disturbing that so many people still stick to these tired, failed Republican policies.
 
2012-06-28 04:10:23 PM  

EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.


The fact that anyone is considering this to be in the realm of the abomination that was Dredd Scott is offensive as hell.
 
2012-06-28 04:10:46 PM  

FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.


Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I don't think so. Roberts backed it, but he also gave Romney his ad to bomb the swing states with, back with Sheldon's promise to donate $100M: he's going to scream that Obama raised your taxes over and over and over. It might work too.
 
2012-06-28 04:13:05 PM  

Dinki: Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.

Which is exactly why it is a defeat for the GOP. The last thing they want is something that benefits ALL Americans.


I see it. I comprehend it. I just don't know why Team GOP's fans can't see how this is a good thing for them, personally.

Actually, I do. Team GOP is about winning. Being a part of the winning team, in America, is the only thing better than sex or drugs or rock and roll or country and western or anything else. Win baby win! That's our motto. They ar on a mission from god to make this the mission statement.

But declaring victory isn't the same as taking the field and earning it. The fans didn't win, the Team won. And the Team's goal isn't a victory for its fans. It is a victory for itself, regardless of the cost. Regardless of what they won.
 
2012-06-28 04:14:23 PM  

Aarontology: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

The fact that anyone is considering this to be in the realm of the abomination that was Dredd Scott is offensive as hell.


Wait wait wait. He actually thinks Dredd Scott was a bad ruling. This is good news! How is he on Plessy v Furgeson?
 
2012-06-28 04:14:42 PM  

Aarontology: EnviroDud: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

The fact that anyone is considering this to be in the realm of the abomination that was Dredd Scott is offensive as hell.


No no no no... we can make it more offensive, to wit: John Roberts is the Uncle Tom of the GOP, gladly taking the lashes from Massa Obama's whip...
 
2012-06-28 04:14:57 PM  

EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched.


Yes, because taxing people according to an enumerated power is exactly like taking a free man and putting him back into slavery. Tax slavery. If only we could put that sentiment on a poster board...
 
2012-06-28 04:19:56 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Wait wait wait. He actually thinks Dredd Scott was a bad ruling. This is good news! How is he on Plessy v Furgeson?


It's progress, I suppose.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: No no no no... we can make it more offensive, to wit: John Roberts is the Uncle Tom of the GOP, gladly taking the lashes from Massa Obama's whip...


I wouldn't be at all surprised if that hadn't come up over in Freeperland.
 
2012-06-28 04:26:33 PM  

palladiate: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched.

Yes, because taxing people according to an enumerated power is exactly like taking a free man and putting him back into slavery. Tax slavery. If only we could put that sentiment on a poster board...


Taxation IS legal slavery. It is also legal rape, theft, arson, and jaywalking.
 
2012-06-28 04:27:06 PM  

Nadie_AZ: I just don't know why Team GOP's fans can't see how this is a good thing for them, personally.


Because Fox says so.

Also, haven't you been watching the middle and lower class Republicans vote against their own best interests for years now? Why would this be a surprise?
 
2012-06-28 04:31:05 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: It is seriously disturbing that so many people still stick to these tired, failed Republican policies.


I wouldn't say "failed." They seem to work so well for them they keep pushing for more. And in a sense, it is working very well for the folks the Republican Party now represents.

If you mean failed as in "is tearing apart the social contract and driving our country towards a less-prosperous future," then yea, they're pretty failtastic policies.
 
2012-06-28 04:33:01 PM  

vernonFL: David Frum is a sane conservative.

In other words, a traitor commie RINO.


To be fair, he is Canadian. Not to say that Canadian conservatives are sane, but they're certainly somewhat different from their American counterparts... In Australia, he'd be called a Liberal...

/I was unaware that Frum is Canadian...
 
2012-06-28 04:33:04 PM  

Aarontology: I wouldn't be at all surprised if that hadn't come up over in Freeperland.


I dare not venture into the Dark Lands to find out.
 
2012-06-28 04:38:56 PM  

Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.


The dumber health 'insurance' CEOs might have to delay buying the helicopter for their second yacht.
 
2012-06-28 04:39:19 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: I wouldn't be at all surprised if that hadn't come up over in Freeperland.

I dare not venture into the Dark Lands to find out.


I rely on brave couriers who brave the tempests.
 
2012-06-28 04:41:49 PM  

Jackson Herring:

Taxation IS legal slavery. It is also legal rape, theft, arson, and jaywalking.


and creatin' a nuisance.
 
2012-06-28 04:48:11 PM  
*slides away from SlidingCarp on the bench*
 
2012-06-28 04:49:07 PM  

EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.


Actually, Dred Scott is right in line with modern right wing idiocy:

Birtherism: A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States..

Textualism: When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them.

Anti-immigration: Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

Original intent: The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.

Scott v Sandford, 60 US 393 (1857)
 
2012-06-28 05:01:49 PM  

JerseyTim: I think the ruling is more of a Dancing Queen.


The GOP is sending out an SOS.
 
2012-06-28 05:05:04 PM  
done in 3
 
2012-06-28 05:06:42 PM  
David Frum on today's SCOTUS ruling Republican Teethknashing: "this a Waterloo, brought about by a dangerous combination of ideological frenzy, poor risk calculation, and a self-annihilating indifference to the real work of government"

FTFM
 
2012-06-28 05:07:15 PM  
Does this mean Boehner and McConnell have to be exiled to St. Helena?
 
2012-06-28 05:07:37 PM  
Frum is a lot like Justice Roberts, he's right when he's right.
 
2012-06-28 05:08:08 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: JerseyTim: I think the ruling is more of a Dancing Queen.

The GOP is sending out an SOS.


images.politico.com
The winner takes it all

 
2012-06-28 05:08:14 PM  
Frum? Psshhhh

Let me know what Glenn Beck has to say about it.... and Rush.
 
2012-06-28 05:10:17 PM  

FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.


And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.
 
2012-06-28 05:12:26 PM  
If the validation of Obamacare* isn't sufficient to ensure Obama's reelection in November, the explosive diarrhea coming from the right in response -- the threats of violence, to expatriate, screeching about Roberts being a traitor and calling for his impeachment, the sheer hyperbolic end times rhetoric -- surely will.

Not that it's anything new to us, of course. We've been watching it for 3 1/2 years. The difference is now it is happening during the election season, and nonpolitical sane independents are finally paying attention. This ugliness is going to turn them away from the GOP in droves.
 
2012-06-28 05:12:38 PM  

GAT_00: Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I don't think so. Roberts backed it, but he also gave Romney his ad to bomb the swing states with, back with Sheldon's promise to donate $100M: he's going to scream that Obama raised your taxes over and over and over. It might work too.


But doesn't that mean that Romney raised taxes while governor of Mass?
 
2012-06-28 05:12:42 PM  
My manager has been going on about how the communists and their communist leader has finally managed to ruin the country.

His tears are delicious.
 
2012-06-28 05:12:44 PM  

EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.


huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.
 
2012-06-28 05:12:55 PM  

ArgusRun: FirstNationalBastard: JerseyTim: I think the ruling is more of a Dancing Queen.

The GOP is sending out an SOS.

[images.politico.com image 605x328]
The winner takes it all


In that pic, the President sounds like he can hear the drums, Fernando.
 
2012-06-28 05:13:29 PM  
* Never liked the term "Obamacare", but now that it is unquestioned law I am going to call it that at every turn.

OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE OBAMACARE
 
2012-06-28 05:15:22 PM  
conservative butthurt everywhere
 
2012-06-28 05:16:16 PM  
Frum
Is
Fum
 
2012-06-28 05:16:23 PM  

Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.


Give him a break. The world just came crashing in on him, and he doesn't know what he's saying.

He's like Gollum in his cave after Bilbo ran off with the ring. Incoherent; screeching at the walls.
 
2012-06-28 05:16:49 PM  

gunga galunga: My manager has been going on about how the communists and their communist leader has finally managed to ruin the country.

His tears are delicious.


How will they taste when the cost of keeping you employed rises above your ability to produce and he lays you off?
 
2012-06-28 05:17:05 PM  

pacified: conservative butthurt everywhere


you think it's bad now, wait 'till tomorrow. the rantings from our GOP shills today was just the rapid reaction propaganda teams. wait until they get their strategies organized, THEN you'll seem some tactical butthurt for sure!
 
b3x
2012-06-28 05:17:34 PM  
I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.
 
2012-06-28 05:18:05 PM  

gilgigamesh: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

Give him a break. The world just came crashing in on him, and he doesn't know what he's saying.

He's like Gollum in his cave after Bilbo ran off with the ring. Incoherent; screeching at the walls.


yeah but...SCOTUS made their ruling. there won't BE another case or any 'reconsidering'. this fight is done and over.
 
j4x
2012-06-28 05:18:08 PM  

DeltaPunch: Frum? Psshhhh

Let me know what Glenn Beck has to say about it.... and Rush.


Today Rush was suggesting that Roberts was coerced by Obama and his cronies into changing his vote at the last minutes.

Then he went on to say that it was a sure thing that party affiliation would affect the quality of the treatment once Obamacare goes into effect.
 
2012-06-28 05:18:35 PM  

Weaver95: FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.

And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.


Wait, seriously?
 
2012-06-28 05:19:05 PM  

Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.


If it means that rich people must pay higher taxes, "it's a big loss for all Americans", even though it really isn't. At least that's what I imagine republicans will tell themselves while getting their panties in a twist over the SCOTUS decision.
 
2012-06-28 05:19:29 PM  

palladiate: It limits the Commerce Clause,


Technically, it doesn't limit the Commerce Clause. That portion of Roberts' opinion is non-binding dicta.
 
2012-06-28 05:20:33 PM  

Weaver95: And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.


What amazes me is he has spent the last year and a half pounding the table that there is absolutely no question that the law is unconstitutional, and will be struck down. He was very specific and adamant about this, and didn't qualify his assertion one bit.

Now that the law has been resoundingly validated -- and by a republican justice no less -- he just shifts gears like he never said any of it. It is absolutely remarkable to me that the legions of dittoheads who have soaked in his assertion every day since Obamacare passed can just wipe that clean and ignore that he ever said anything different.

And yet they will. *shakes head*
 
2012-06-28 05:21:02 PM  

b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.


I don't either, but that's not what happened here.
 
2012-06-28 05:21:03 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Weaver95: FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.

And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.

Wait, seriously?


oh yes. Rush was trying to convince himself and his followers that today's SCOTUS ruling was, in fact, a WIN for the Republicans. I'm not sure I understood his reasoning, because he broke down into gibberish shortly afterwards.
 
2012-06-28 05:22:00 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Weaver95: FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.

And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.

Wait, seriously?


It's a win for Limbaugh.
 
2012-06-28 05:22:08 PM  

b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.


That's because you don't know what you are talking about. The law does nothing of the sort.
 
2012-06-28 05:22:14 PM  
I see doing SOMETHING to lower health costs, and this COULD be a way, but i really don't see the medical companies / doctors, etc...lowering ANY costs. I can see them RAISE costs now that they know that more people will be on insurance they can milk.
 
2012-06-28 05:22:18 PM  
Dammitsomuch:

"real work of government"

FFS, insurance only works if *everyone* is in the pool -- the expensive to cover and the cheap, the rich and the poor, the high risk and the low. Further, making a profit off people being sick really is... wrong? perverted? detestable? something.

Health insurance is one of the things that really should be considered the "real work of government." Hell, the government is already picking up the tab for the old and sick -- most expensive chunk of the pool! -- we're just handing profit to the insurance companies by carving off the biggest costs... in several different ways, too.

And I really can't grok how the Corporatist Right is upset by something that can only help the Corporatist Right: "Everyone must buy insurance from private providers on the open market!" How is that not a win for big-money interests?

Unfortunately, universal-coverage/single-payer won't happen in my lifetime, and that should really be embarrassing to us all. Then again, it's too big, too messy, no good single solution exists, and too much money is involved... nothing shy of appointing a benevolent dictator may ever get it fixed.

/ ranty!
 
2012-06-28 05:22:32 PM  

gilgigamesh: Weaver95: And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.

What amazes me is he has spent the last year and a half pounding the table that there is absolutely no question that the law is unconstitutional, and will be struck down. He was very specific and adamant about this, and didn't qualify his assertion one bit.

Now that the law has been resoundingly validated -- and by a republican justice no less -- he just shifts gears like he never said any of it. It is absolutely remarkable to me that the legions of dittoheads who have soaked in his assertion every day since Obamacare passed can just wipe that clean and ignore that he ever said anything different.

And yet they will. *shakes head*


its downright weird to see Orwellian doublethink in action, isn't it?
 
2012-06-28 05:23:17 PM  

Weaver95: gilgigamesh: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

Give him a break. The world just came crashing in on him, and he doesn't know what he's saying.

He's like Gollum in his cave after Bilbo ran off with the ring. Incoherent; screeching at the walls.

yeah but...SCOTUS made their ruling. there won't BE another case or any 'reconsidering'. this fight is done and over.


Yes I know. EnviroDude probably does too, but he's temporarily lost it.
 
2012-06-28 05:23:25 PM  

Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.


Because when America wins, Republicans lose.
 
2012-06-28 05:23:48 PM  

vpb: It is a Waterloo for the Retarded Right.


wouldn't that be Derpaloo?
 
2012-06-28 05:24:08 PM  
Interesting editorial opinion piece. Does someone have a link to the actual news part?
 
2012-06-28 05:24:39 PM  

Jackson Herring: palladiate: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched.

Yes, because taxing people according to an enumerated power is exactly like taking a free man and putting him back into slavery. Tax slavery. If only we could put that sentiment on a poster board...

Taxation IS legal slavery. It is also legal rape, theft, arson, and jaywalking.


It's also knavery, mopery, popery, and possibly Simony.
 
2012-06-28 05:25:09 PM  

EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.


HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!

*inahles*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!

Your party is dead in the water.

I can smell the acrid stink of your fear.
 
2012-06-28 05:25:32 PM  
Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.

AND the Tea Party is all stirred up again and will gain new recruits.

Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America. No tort reform, no breaking the monopoly the AMA has on the supply of doctors, no innovation allowed in providing basic healthcare....really, a nurse and some really good software is all you really need to provide primary care healthcare, but the healthcare industry certainly won't allow it. And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff. The whole industry is a ripoff. And O-care does NOTHING to address it.

Something that can't continue won't, and healthcare in this country is on course for collapse. I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes....
 
2012-06-28 05:25:35 PM  

Mr. Right: How will they taste when the cost of keeping you employed rises above your ability to produce and he lays you off?

 
2012-06-28 05:26:00 PM  

Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.


Ehhh. Taxes can't be challenged until levied and they declared it a tax so there will probably be a challenge in 2014.

It will 100% be upheld. Pretty open and shut case that the mandate is legitly within Congresses power to tax, but that wont stop another years worth of breathless coverage when the time comes. :/
 
2012-06-28 05:27:19 PM  

b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.


because poor poor people will get medicaid, poor people will get capped premiums.
www.spotlightonpoverty.org

Link
 
2012-06-28 05:27:40 PM  

mark12A: Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.


i.zdnet.com

 
2012-06-28 05:30:31 PM  

gilgigamesh: Weaver95: gilgigamesh: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

Give him a break. The world just came crashing in on him, and he doesn't know what he's saying.

He's like Gollum in his cave after Bilbo ran off with the ring. Incoherent; screeching at the walls.

yeah but...SCOTUS made their ruling. there won't BE another case or any 'reconsidering'. this fight is done and over.

Yes I know. EnviroDude probably does too, but he's temporarily lost it.


well...should we maybe contact someone for him? make sure he's in a safe place for the night? I don't want him hurting himself or anything.
 
2012-06-28 05:31:46 PM  

Ned Stark: Ehhh. Taxes can't be challenged until levied and they declared it a tax so there will probably be a challenge in 2014.

It will 100% be upheld. Pretty open and shut case that the mandate is legitly within Congresses power to tax, but that wont stop another years worth of breathless coverage when the time comes. :/


The court actually addressed this. The anti-injunction act requires that the tax actually be designated as such by Congress. Since congress called it a penalty, the anti-injunction act is inapplicable.

Anyway its over. Or rather it's up to congress now.
 
2012-06-28 05:32:11 PM  

gilgigamesh: mark12A: Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

[i.zdnet.com image 475x292]


Khan is the perfect symbol for the Republican party... an out of date throwback that will destroy himself, his people, and an entire planet just to get revenge on someone he thinks did him wrong.
 
2012-06-28 05:34:02 PM  

Weaver95: well...should we maybe contact someone for him? make sure he's in a safe place for the night? I don't want him hurting himself or anything.


Nah. I'm sure he has plenty of bootstraps.
 
2012-06-28 05:35:55 PM  

gilgigamesh: Ned Stark: Ehhh. Taxes can't be challenged until levied and they declared it a tax so there will probably be a challenge in 2014.

It will 100% be upheld. Pretty open and shut case that the mandate is legitly within Congresses power to tax, but that wont stop another years worth of breathless coverage when the time comes. :/

The court actually addressed this. The anti-injunction act requires that the tax actually be designated as such by Congress. Since congress called it a penalty, the anti-injunction act is inapplicable.

Anyway its over. Or rather it's up to congress now.


Oh, so we're getting another round of confessional circus rather than another round of supremest circus before getting the outcome we already know. And maybe even both.

Ugh, that's not better.
 
2012-06-28 05:38:17 PM  

gilgigamesh: Weaver95: well...should we maybe contact someone for him? make sure he's in a safe place for the night? I don't want him hurting himself or anything.

Nah. I'm sure he has plenty of bootstraps.


Oh. well, that's probably true.
 
2012-06-28 05:39:57 PM  

mark12A: THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.


Wow, no. Really, no. It's a terrible attack ad, it's completely in the weeds, way too complicated.

Attack ads almost always fail unless they can be described in a single sentence. "Roberts' says it's a tax" requires a far too much explaining of the underlying issues.

Obama's counter is simple: To quote the Republican who wrote this very article, "A vote for the Republicans is a vote to raise prescription drug costs on senior citizens and to empower insurance companies to deny coverage to children for pre-existing conditions."

Done and done.
 
2012-06-28 05:40:21 PM  

mark12A: And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff.


LOL. I sometimes forget how hilarious you can be. Yes, I think that everyone dreams of the day when getting an x-ray means finding the one machine that isn't broken, has toner, and doesn't have a huge paper jam. Then you wait in line for hours while the guy ahead of you photocopies pictures of his dick. And finally clerk will talk on her phone to someone else the whole time she tries to ring you up, and then is annoyed and blames you when she gets the price wrong a half dozen times, and then can't count change.

But perhaps many of your readers are too young to remember Kinkos. You should have said "getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as returning late movies to Blockbuster." But even that's a few years out of date. Perhaps you meant "getting X-rays should be just like ordering internet through Comcast."
 
2012-06-28 05:44:05 PM  
I can actually see the GOP working to appeal to the few Dems that don't think Obamacare was a good idea and parlaying a few votes from that as the only way to undo it. The race so far appears so close, those few who feel strongly enough to cross party lines might just make the difference. Just a theory.
 
2012-06-28 05:44:53 PM  
It's the last barrier to single payer, plain and simple.

The fine to employers who drop coverage is a platry $2,000 per FTE.

Link

Drop the group plan, pay the fine, save millions. Bonus the executives enough to buy good private insurance and dump the masses into the exchange.
 
2012-06-28 05:46:12 PM  

cchris_39: It's the last barrier to single payer, plain and simple.

The fine to employers who drop coverage is a platry $2,000 per FTE.

Link

Drop the group plan, pay the fine, save millions. Bonus the executives enough to buy good private insurance and dump the masses into the exchange.


...and then hope nobody organizes a boycott or calls your ass out for being a greedy pig f*cker.
 
2012-06-28 05:47:32 PM  

valar_morghulis: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA! HAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!

*inahles*

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH!

Your party is dead in the water.

I can smell the acrid stink of your fear.


Now I have to wait and see if you get the same treatment I've been getting lately for hurting peoples' widdle feewings.
 
2012-06-28 05:48:12 PM  
Ummm, Kinko's had always worked for me..maybe you're a dick or something...
 
2012-06-28 05:48:24 PM  

KeelingLovesCornholes: I can actually see the GOP working to appeal to the few Dems that don't think Obamacare was a good idea and parlaying a few votes from that as the only way to undo it. The race so far appears so close, those few who feel strongly enough to cross party lines might just make the difference. Just a theory.


No way do they get a veto proof repeal vote.

And double no way do they get the whitehouse.

Obamacare stands till '16 at the very least.
 
2012-06-28 05:48:49 PM  
Everybody sing along, now...

Come to think of it, I haven't heard much from Sen.DeMinted lately either.
 
2012-06-28 05:49:31 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: This decision is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.


Don't you realize that there is not one homosexual in SCOTUS?
 
2012-06-28 05:49:42 PM  

EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.


All other trolls should be ashamed. This is how you play the game.
 
2012-06-28 05:50:03 PM  
Isn't this the part where Romney takes credit for Obamacare? It is an even numbered day and he's only against it on odd numbered ones.
 
2012-06-28 05:51:51 PM  

KeelingLovesCornholes: I can actually see the GOP working to appeal to the few Dems that don't think Obamacare was a good idea and parlaying a few votes from that as the only way to undo it. The race so far appears so close, those few who feel strongly enough to cross party lines might just make the difference. Just a theory.


You're forgetting the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to get the time of day in the Senate. That and this victory dramatically improves not only Obama's chances of re-election, but that of sitting Democratic senators. Even if the Republicans got their 60, they'd still have to get past the veto, that means getting hitting an even larger target - 2/3rds majority in both the house and the senate.

Not Gonna Happen.

If Obama is re-elected, the soonest a repeal could occur would be four and a half years from now. By that time, most of the law will have come into force and it will be enshrined as yet another entitlement, a "third rail" of U.S. politics, just like social security and medicare.

This fight is over, the Republicans didn't just lose, they lost big.
 
2012-06-28 05:53:40 PM  
mark12A: "I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes...."

No need to go that far. Just make an appointment to see a proctologist and get your head examined like you usually do."
 
2012-06-28 05:54:43 PM  

Dinki: Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.

Which is exactly why it is a defeat for the GOP. The last thing they want is something that benefits ALL Americans.


Best exchange on Fark this week.
 
2012-06-28 05:54:50 PM  

RandomRandom:
This fight is over, the Republicans didn't just lose, they lost big.


well...yeah. But the GOP leadership has to try and salvage what they can from this reversal of fortune. thats why Limbaugh was saying that this was bad news...for Obama. Because f*ck you, that's why.
 
2012-06-28 05:54:52 PM  

Weaver95: cchris_39: It's the last barrier to single payer, plain and simple.

The fine to employers who drop coverage is a platry $2,000 per FTE.

Link

Drop the group plan, pay the fine, save millions. Bonus the executives enough to buy good private insurance and dump the masses into the exchange.

...and then hope nobody organizes a boycott or calls your ass out for being a greedy pig f*cker.


LOL yeah that's effective. Almost put Wal-Mart out of business didn't it.
 
2012-06-28 05:55:49 PM  

cchris_39: Weaver95: cchris_39: It's the last barrier to single payer, plain and simple.

The fine to employers who drop coverage is a platry $2,000 per FTE.

Link

Drop the group plan, pay the fine, save millions. Bonus the executives enough to buy good private insurance and dump the masses into the exchange.

...and then hope nobody organizes a boycott or calls your ass out for being a greedy pig f*cker.

LOL yeah that's effective. Almost put Wal-Mart out of business didn't it.


cost Limbaugh a couple million, not that he learned his lesson.
 
2012-06-28 05:56:05 PM  

DeltaPunch: Frum? Psshhhh

Let me know what Glenn Beck has to say about it.... and Rush.


I heard Rush was flinging poo and thrashing around with his Michael J Fox impersonation. Oh, and he actually mentioned something about pedophelia, which must have been an unfortunate Freudian slip
 
2012-06-28 05:58:13 PM  

mark12A: Ummm, Kinko's had always worked for me..maybe you're a dick or something...


Kinkos went out of business in 2004.
 
2012-06-28 05:58:42 PM  

RandomRandom: KeelingLovesCornholes: I can actually see the GOP working to appeal to the few Dems that don't think Obamacare was a good idea and parlaying a few votes from that as the only way to undo it. The race so far appears so close, those few who feel strongly enough to cross party lines might just make the difference. Just a theory.

You're forgetting the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to get the time of day in the Senate. That and this victory dramatically improves not only Obama's chances of re-election, but that of sitting Democratic senators. Even if the Republicans got their 60, they'd still have to get past the veto, that means getting hitting an even larger target - 2/3rds majority in both the house and the senate.

Not Gonna Happen.

If Obama is re-elected, the soonest a repeal could occur would be four and a half years from now. By that time, most of the law will have come into force and it will be enshrined as yet another entitlement, a "third rail" of U.S. politics, just like social security and medicare.

This fight is over, the Republicans didn't just lose, they lost big.


They lost by not only getting their shiatty idea of fixing the health mess by putting more power and money in the hands of the people who created the mess passed, but also managed to redifine that same plan as being a far left initiative at the fringe of "reasonable" discourse?

Goddamn. I wanna lose like that a couple times.
 
2012-06-28 06:00:03 PM  

bugontherug: Technically, it doesn't limit the Commerce Clause. That portion of Roberts' opinion is non-binding dicta.


Roberts' opinion plus the four others who voted against it on Commerce Clause grounds equals five who declined to uphold it under the Commerce Clause.
 
2012-06-28 06:01:06 PM  
Terrible ruling. If I can't deny my tax money going to unwed teenage sluts, how is this a fair america for me and my Jesus™ faith?
 
2012-06-28 06:05:45 PM  

Ned Stark: RandomRandom: KeelingLovesCornholes: I can actually see the GOP working to appeal to the few Dems that don't think Obamacare was a good idea and parlaying a few votes from that as the only way to undo it. The race so far appears so close, those few who feel strongly enough to cross party lines might just make the difference. Just a theory.

You're forgetting the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to get the time of day in the Senate. That and this victory dramatically improves not only Obama's chances of re-election, but that of sitting Democratic senators. Even if the Republicans got their 60, they'd still have to get past the veto, that means getting hitting an even larger target - 2/3rds majority in both the house and the senate.

Not Gonna Happen.

If Obama is re-elected, the soonest a repeal could occur would be four and a half years from now. By that time, most of the law will have come into force and it will be enshrined as yet another entitlement, a "third rail" of U.S. politics, just like social security and medicare.

This fight is over, the Republicans didn't just lose, they lost big.

They lost by not only getting their shiatty idea of fixing the health mess by putting more power and money in the hands of the people who created the mess passed, but also managed to redifine that same plan as being a far left initiative at the fringe of "reasonable" discourse?

Goddamn. I wanna lose like that a couple times.


I have to assume that you're a supporter of single-payer instead?
 
2012-06-28 06:11:48 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Ned Stark: RandomRandom: KeelingLovesCornholes: I can actually see the GOP working to appeal to the few Dems that don't think Obamacare was a good idea and parlaying a few votes from that as the only way to undo it. The race so far appears so close, those few who feel strongly enough to cross party lines might just make the difference. Just a theory.

You're forgetting the filibuster. It takes 60 votes to get the time of day in the Senate. That and this victory dramatically improves not only Obama's chances of re-election, but that of sitting Democratic senators. Even if the Republicans got their 60, they'd still have to get past the veto, that means getting hitting an even larger target - 2/3rds majority in both the house and the senate.

Not Gonna Happen.

If Obama is re-elected, the soonest a repeal could occur would be four and a half years from now. By that time, most of the law will have come into force and it will be enshrined as yet another entitlement, a "third rail" of U.S. politics, just like social security and medicare.

This fight is over, the Republicans didn't just lose, they lost big.

They lost by not only getting their shiatty idea of fixing the health mess by putting more power and money in the hands of the people who created the mess passed, but also managed to redifine that same plan as being a far left initiative at the fringe of "reasonable" discourse?

Goddamn. I wanna lose like that a couple times.

I have to assume that you're a supporter of single-payer instead?


Or at the very least a proper public option, yeah.
 
2012-06-28 06:12:00 PM  
Frum, your blog didn't suck, 3/21/2010
 
2012-06-28 06:13:49 PM  

Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.


When the people that are fined for refusal to buy insurance are arrested by the IRSfor tax evasion, it could be that they will appeal their arrests to the USSC under the new Romney court ( minus Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg). They will overturn Obamacare.
 
2012-06-28 06:14:52 PM  

Ned Stark: I have to assume that you're a supporter of single-payer instead?

Or at the very least a proper public option, yeah.


Oh, okay. As long as it's not the butthurt going on around here.

I'd be much happier with single-payer myself, but that's not ever going to happen while Congress is acting like a roomful of spoiled 3-year olds.
 
2012-06-28 06:15:14 PM  

EnviroDude: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

When the people that are fined for refusal to buy insurance are arrested by the IRSfor tax evasion, it could be that they will appeal their arrests to the USSC under the new Romney court ( minus Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg). They will overturn Obamacare.


um...that's not going to happen ever. SCOTUS is done with Obamacare. case closed, book it - done.
 
2012-06-28 06:17:43 PM  

T-Servo: GAT_00: Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I don't think so. Roberts backed it, but he also gave Romney his ad to bomb the swing states with, back with Sheldon's promise to donate $100M: he's going to scream that Obama raised your taxes over and over and over. It might work too.

But doesn't that mean that Romney raised taxes while governor of Mass?


Romney raised taxes as governor AND cut gun rights. The DNC just won't run it in an ad because they're incompetent.
 
2012-06-28 06:18:47 PM  
I was this close to getting out of being forced to buy automobile insurance.
 
2012-06-28 06:19:17 PM  
Weaver95:

Hey didn't notice that was you posting. Now that Obama has the "Republicans want to take away your healthcare" card to play, I don't see any way he loses in November. Do you?
 
2012-06-28 06:19:38 PM  

palladiate: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

The problem is that his political movement went completely insane around him.


That's true. I'm particularly worried about what the decision will mean for the school lunch program -which is included in the yearly farm bill- and federal highway funding, which is used to keep the states from going Jim Crow on a handful of issues. If the Court is really willing to uphold the idea that the States can pick and choose which parts of federal funding programs they want to follow so long as they don't accept the money for programs they don't want, then that could mean major head-aches for a whole host of social services, from federal public transit money, to daycare, to education. The one thing that I think prevents that in some way is that many of the programs are included in the main body of their respective bills, and his argument was basically that states can refuse to accept funding for the "extra" programs included in the Medicaid expansion, not full on nullificationism "states don't have to participate in federal programs and laws they don't like". Roberts' discussion of "necessary and proper" also points to programs pivotal to federal initiatives being considered "out of bounds" for refusal.

The "Necessary and Proper" section of his decision is actually kind of sneaky though. He basically argues that the Individual Mandate can't be upheld on N&P grounds in regards to the PPACA. While on one hand this strips the mandate of a Constitutional defense, on the other it opens the door for a single payer program by stating that a direct funding plan like the mandate isn't necessary for a national healthcare bill. Might be a stretch, but law is all about making stretches :)
 
2012-06-28 06:20:13 PM  

Weaver95: EnviroDude: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

When the people that are fined for refusal to buy insurance are arrested by the IRSfor tax evasion, it could be that they will appeal their arrests to the USSC under the new Romney court ( minus Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg). They will overturn Obamacare.

um...that's not going to happen ever. SCOTUS is done with Obamacare. case closed, book it - done.


Now, stop. They need to be able to imagine that someday, somehow, a Supreme Court decision will magically be erased by a hypothetical situation that couldn't ever happen. Also, remember these are people with GEDs in law you're talking about. They've never had to actually study how incredibly rare a later court overturning a prior decision actually is.

See also: Stare decisis.
 
2012-06-28 06:21:28 PM  

cchris_39: Weaver95:

Hey didn't notice that was you posting. Now that Obama has the "Republicans want to take away your healthcare" card to play, I don't see any way he loses in November. Do you?


After Romney cinched the GOP nomination Obama's re-election was in the bag.
 
2012-06-28 06:25:34 PM  

GAT_00: T-Servo: GAT_00: Actually, I've been thinking about this, and I don't think so. Roberts backed it, but he also gave Romney his ad to bomb the swing states with, back with Sheldon's promise to donate $100M: he's going to scream that Obama raised your taxes over and over and over. It might work too.

But doesn't that mean that Romney raised taxes while governor of Mass?

Romney raised taxes as governor AND cut gun rights. The DNC just won't run it in an ad because they're incompetent.


Yeah it's crazy; Obama's got a better gun record than him but they just won't use it. Not only is this a great chance to skewer Romney; it's also a singular opportunity to call the NRA out for being more supportive of the Republican gun-grabber than the Democrat "hands off"-er. From a purely strategic point of view, not running with that seems like an unforced error. Hell, most Texas Dems I know a huge gun fans. Start running commercials featuring prominent gun-loving Dems calling Romney out on it and shaming the NRA. Not only would it be hilarious, but it would push the NRA and their defenders to start pointing out the org's support for down-ticket pro-gun Dems, so free publicity for state races.
 
2012-06-28 06:29:49 PM  

gilgigamesh: mark12A: Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.
[i.zdnet.com image 475x292]


Link

LOL!
 
2012-06-28 06:32:33 PM  

EnviroDude: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

When the people that are fined for refusal to buy insurance are arrested by the IRSfor tax evasion, it could be that they will appeal their arrests to the USSC under the new Romney court ( minus Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg). They will overturn Obamacare.


No one is going to be arrested. Go read the decision. Roberts specifically states that criminal penalties for refusing to pay the fine or get healthcare are out of bounds. As such those who don't pay the fine will merely face wage garnishment or one of the other numerous non-criminal ways the IRS has to extract payment from the truant. And let's not forget that enforcing this is entirely incumbent upon the IRS itself; the IRS doesn't even have the man-power to force some of our most well-known and wealthiest citizens to abide by the tax code, how likely are they to put a huge amount of resources into this?

Roberts also states that collecting the fine for those who don't get healthcare can only legally be done entirely through the IRS as part of your yearly tax payment. That means anyone who doesn't pay taxes in the US doesn't have to get healthcare insurance. So, all those unemployed grads out there stuck in the limbo between their parents' insurance and job coverage are in the clear.
 
2012-06-28 06:33:26 PM  

cchris_39: Weaver95:

Hey didn't notice that was you posting. Now that Obama has the "Republicans want to take away your healthcare" card to play, I don't see any way he loses in November. Do you?


I don't see how that makes a difference.
Those people that know this helps them would already have been voting for the Democrats anyway.
 
2012-06-28 06:34:22 PM  

EnviroDude: Weaver95: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched. It will be interesting to see how Roberts reconsiders this next year when the dems have been gutted.

huh? what are you talking about? this case is done and over.

When the people that are fined for refusal to buy insurance are arrested by the IRSfor tax evasion, it could be that they will appeal their arrests to the USSC under the new Romney court ( minus Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg). They will overturn Obamacare.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-28 06:38:11 PM  

bugontherug: palladiate: It limits the Commerce Clause,

Technically, it doesn't limit the Commerce Clause. That portion of Roberts' opinion is non-binding dicta.


While true, these are considered by future courts. Unless you're Nino.
 
2012-06-28 06:52:37 PM  
Ya know, there is another option. The Republicans could declare the fight over, and decide to, I don't know...work with the Administration to constructively improve the law. It's already a fact that many parts of the law are popular with the public.
 
2012-06-28 07:00:29 PM  

Weaver95: cchris_39: Weaver95:

Hey didn't notice that was you posting. Now that Obama has the "Republicans want to take away your healthcare" card to play, I don't see any way he loses in November. Do you?

After Romney cinched Once the GOP nomination primaries got rolling, Obama's re-election was in the bag.


FTFY

/for better accurate-ness
 
2012-06-28 07:00:40 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Ya know, there is another option. The Republicans could declare the fight over, and decide to, I don't know...work with the Administration to constructively improve the law. It's already a fact that many parts of the law are popular with the public.


Thank you for your input. Now class, this is considered fantasy. Can we have some examples of reality, please?
 
Ehh
2012-06-28 07:02:33 PM  
Weaver95: FlashHarry: it really is pretty tough to spin this as anything but a massive defeat for the GOP.

And yet...Limbaugh spent a lot of time today trying to say that this was a GOP win.


And in Egypt everyone just takes it for granted that Egypt won the Yom Kippur War with Israel. Spanish novelist Delibes has a passage about how people in Madrid just went back to their business like nothing had happened after a) getting all rah rah rah about how they were going to kick America's ass in 1898 and b) getting their asses kicked instead.

Self-examination is a critical thinking skill, and as the GOP educators in Texas know, critical thinking is a liberal plot to destroy America.
 
2012-06-28 07:03:15 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Ya know, there is another option. The Republicans could declare the fight over, and decide to, I don't know...work with the Administration to constructively improve the law. It's already a fact that many parts of the law are popular with the public.


Yeah... that'll happen

/because the Right is all about working together
//as long as everyone does what they demand
 
2012-06-28 07:03:16 PM  

Close2TheEdge: Ya know, there is another option. The Republicans could declare the fight over, and decide to, I don't know...work with the Administration to constructively improve the law. It's already a fact that many parts of the law are popular with the public.


the GOP leadership would rather chew their own lips off than help Obama in any way/shape or form.
 
2012-06-28 07:03:44 PM  
I always take amusement in watching people defend the political parties, all the while somehow convincing themselves that either party and the politicians that populate them actually give a single lonely crap about the citizenry.
 
2012-06-28 07:11:40 PM  

SFSailor: FFS, insurance only works if *everyone* is in the pool -- the expensive to cover and the cheap, the rich and the poor, the high risk and the low. Further, making a profit off people being sick really is... wrong? perverted? detestable? something.


Semi-related question: do moral arguments (like the one in bold above) make any sense in the world of number crunchers and bean counters? I mean, sure, some of the Republican opposition to the ACA has been about the freedom of states and individuals from the oppression of the federal government (a moral argument), but at its root, their arguments are that this is about dollars and cents. People lacking insurance can't afford it, or cost too much to cover, etc, etc, etc... Do they even recognize that, beyond the economic arguments about productivity and distributed social costs of individual hardships, and beyond the political arguments that less hardship means more stability and less dissent, that not all situations should be turned into opportunities to extract profits (note, I didn't say that not all situations 'can,' just that not all situations 'should')?
 
2012-06-28 07:12:03 PM  

mark12A: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.

AND the Tea Party is all stirred up again and will gain new recruits.

Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America. No tort reform, no breaking the monopoly the AMA has on the supply of doctors, no innovation allowed in providing basic healthcare....really, a nurse and some really good software is all you really need to provide primary care healthcare, but the healthcare industry certainly won't allow it. And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff. The whole industry is a ripoff. And O-care does NOTHING to address it.

Something that can't continue won't, and healthcare in this country is on course for collapse. I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes....


I hope I'm around you and your horse vet when you break your leg.
 
2012-06-28 07:13:03 PM  

jso2897: Jackson Herring: palladiate: EnviroDude: Remember Dredd Scott, an early decision the USSC botched.

Yes, because taxing people according to an enumerated power is exactly like taking a free man and putting him back into slavery. Tax slavery. If only we could put that sentiment on a poster board...

Taxation IS legal slavery. It is also legal rape, theft, arson, and jaywalking.

It's also knavery, mopery, popery, and possibly Simony.


and also ribbed for more pleasure!
 
2012-06-28 07:15:56 PM  

The Larch: mark12A: Ummm, Kinko's had always worked for me..maybe you're a dick or something...

Kinkos went out of business in 2004.


Kinkos is still in business, they just changed their name to FedEx Office.
 
2012-06-28 07:20:25 PM  

Mr. Right: gunga galunga: My manager has been going on about how the communists and their communist leader has finally managed to ruin the country.

His tears are delicious.

How will they taste when the cost of keeping you employed rises above your ability to produce and he lays you off?


You really fail to see how this works. ACA will (eventually) REDUCE the amount of responsibility to employers
 
2012-06-28 07:24:14 PM  

Aarontology: Worse, any replacement of the law's popular elements will require financing. But where is that money to come from? New taxes are unacceptable.

that's what's really gonna fark Romney.

As long as Romney and the GOP says no taxes for those provisions, Obama will be able to say they want to end those provisions. Romney will be stuck denying the popular parts of the bill, or pissing off the Grover norquist fanclub.


Another thing that will screw him over is that last week he was blasting Obama over spending time on "Obamacare" instead of the economy (which to be honest was a legit point). Now today R*Money said the first thing he would do if elected was repeal "Obamacare".

You know, rather than fix they economy.

/When will people call him on this stuff???
 
2012-06-28 07:24:47 PM  

b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.


I kind of see this the same way. I'm not sure of the real benefit to "Obamacare". I can see some benefits of parts, such as allowing kids to stay insured longer, not denying coverage (but can't they just charge more premiums if you're higher risk??), and things like that, but I haven't seen anywhere where people will automatically get "free" insurance. My mom has to pay cash for medical care when she needs it; has no insurance. As I understand it, she'll be required to purchase health insurance and if she doesn't she'll be penalized/taxed. I haven't seen anywhere that she'd be "given" insurance by Obamacare. In addition, I'm seeing my rates go up substantially and more out of pocket cost after care. Where's the win for me? All I really see are mandates that people have coverage or else. In addition (and with my employer as well), I hear talk that it may be less costly for companies to drop coverage altogether and pay the penalty. Any truth to that? Where's the win there? I'm really not seeing the "win" for anyone in Obamacare. From a principles standpoint I can see the humanity in wanting everyone covered, but all I see are "mandates" that everyone get covered, not actual coverage for anyone. Someone help me understand the good here??? And aren't healthcare costs going up higher, and faster, because of Obamcare. At a rate faster than if it hadn't been passed at all? How is this an improvement to our deficit?
 
2012-06-28 07:28:34 PM  

Lorelle: I honestly don't see why this decision should be characterized as a defeat; it's a win for ALL Americans.


That remains to be seen. There's plenty of ways this bill can mean absolutely jack.
 
2012-06-28 07:30:03 PM  
Important tip for the GOP:

Before claiming the moral high ground, be absolutely certain that you actually occupy it.
 
2012-06-28 07:31:40 PM  

Heraclitus: Mr. Right: gunga galunga: My manager has been going on about how the communists and their communist leader has finally managed to ruin the country.

His tears are delicious.

How will they taste when the cost of keeping you employed rises above your ability to produce and he lays you off?

You really fail to see how this works. ACA will (eventually) REDUCE the amount of responsibility to employers


And I have some great beach property right on the ocean to sell you. In Nevada. If you act fast, I'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge.
 
2012-06-28 07:32:26 PM  

Raven Darke: Important tip for the GOP:

Before claiming the moral high ground, be absolutely certain that you actually occupy it.


Moral high ground means fark you I got mine to the GOP
 
2012-06-28 07:39:42 PM  

gilgigamesh: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

That's because you don't know what you are talking about. The law does nothing of the sort.


Other than tax people who don't have healthcare? How does that not penalize people who can't afford healthcare?
 
2012-06-28 07:44:37 PM  
i14.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 07:53:43 PM  
www.theresilientearth.com

John Frum save us all!
 
2012-06-28 08:02:56 PM  

westfalc: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

I kind of see this the same way. I'm not sure of the real benefit to "Obamacare". I can see some benefits of parts, such as allowing kids to stay insured longer, not denying coverage (but can't they just charge more premiums if you're higher risk??), and things like that, but I haven't seen anywhere where people will automatically get "free" insurance. My mom has to pay cash for medical care when she needs it; has no insurance. As I understand it, she'll be required to purchase health insurance and if she doesn't she'll be penalized/taxed. I haven't seen anywhere that she'd be "given" insurance by Obamacare. In addition, I'm seeing my rates go up substantially and more out of pocket cost after care. Where's the win for me? All I really see are mandates that people have coverage or else. In addition (and with my employer as well), I hear talk that it may be less costly for companies to drop coverage altogether and pay the penalty. Any truth to that? Where's the win there? I'm really not seeing the "win" for anyone in Obamacare. From a principles standpoint I can see the humanity in wanting everyone covered, but all I see are "mandates" that everyone get covered, not actual coverage for anyone. Someone help me understand the good here??? And aren't healthcare costs going up higher, and faster, because of Obamcare. At a rate faster than if it hadn't been passed at all? How is this an improvement to our deficit?


You and me both, brother
 
2012-06-28 08:06:47 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [i14.photobucket.com image 640x480]


farm4.staticflickr.com

Quick, someone call Whine-1-1!
 
2012-06-28 08:24:50 PM  

SFSailor: Dammitsomuch:

"real work of government"

FFS, insurance only works if *everyone* is in the pool -- the expensive to cover and the cheap, the rich and the poor, the high risk and the low. Further, making a profit off people being sick really is... wrong? perverted? detestable? something.

Health insurance is one of the things that really should be considered the "real work of government." Hell, the government is already picking up the tab for the old and sick -- most expensive chunk of the pool! -- we're just handing profit to the insurance companies by carving off the biggest costs... in several different ways, too.

And I really can't grok how the Corporatist Right is upset by something that can only help the Corporatist Right: "Everyone must buy insurance from private providers on the open market!" How is that not a win for big-money interests?

Unfortunately, universal-coverage/single-payer won't happen in my lifetime, and that should really be embarrassing to us all. Then again, it's too big, too messy, no good single solution exists, and too much money is involved... nothing shy of appointing a benevolent dictator may ever get it fixed.

/ ranty!


If you want a benevolent dictator I've always wanted to be a benevolent dictator. Vote Hogan in 2016!
 
2012-06-28 08:42:13 PM  
I will gloat about just one, more thing regarding this whole deal. Jim Bruning, AG of Nebraska and professional smug, arrogant, prick, was one of the plaintiffs on the case that went to the SCOTUS. This year he's seen his chances at Ben Nelson's Senate seat snagged out of his hands by some random, Tea Party backed state legislator from Valentine, and now he's had his ass handed to him by the Supreme Court. Couldn't happened to a nicer guy.

The GOP really is fracturing from within, they really are at a loss about what to do about this decision, and they realized they put all their stock this year into a bunch of crazies and wound up with Mittbot 5000 as their candidate.

I'll have my Bitter Conservative Tears neat, please.
 
2012-06-28 09:07:22 PM  

mark12A: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.

AND the Tea Party is all stirred up again and will gain new recruits.

Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America. No tort reform, no breaking the monopoly the AMA has on the supply of doctors, no innovation allowed in providing basic healthcare....really, a nurse and some really good software is all you really need to provide primary care healthcare, but the healthcare industry certainly won't allow it. And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff. The whole industry is a ripoff. And O-care does NOTHING to address it.

Something that can't continue won't, and healthcare in this country is on course for collapse. I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes....


You have some points of coherence.

1) Tort reform: non-issue. Cost of tort is less than 0.1% of health care costs

2) AMA monopoly: I agree completely, but the number of doctors isn't really an issue as much as what those doctors choose to do (specialties like plastic surgery instead of GP)

3) Innovation in providing basic healthcare: I would like to see more "jiffy lube" style basic healthcare provision. But at the same time, who can trust something like that? I don't even trust Jiffy Lube to give me 4.5 quarts of quality oil and not make some bogus claim that my headlight fluid is down a pint. If health care is for profit, what makes you think a for-profit healthcare provider won't screw you seven ways to Sunday by making erroneous claims about your health? It's already being done by thousands of scam artists already using stupid new agey jingoes like "raliean fields" or "chakra energy source" BS.

4) Nurse and good software: for 99% of the time, that's really what's needed. Doctors oppose this because it decrements their worth. It's an ego thing. Part of the problem of being a government is that you have to get everyone to accept some compromises. You can't "ram things down people's throats" as the GOP would like to claim (despite them being the biggest and boldest throat-rammers).

5) Cheap x-rays and such: I've always felt that the healthcare law that Obama and the Dems managed to get passed in 2010 was mostly a foot-in-the-door move, because it was so watered-down as to be meaningless, much like what you're claiming. There is absolutely no incentive for any of the health providers (pharmaceuticals, medical devices industries, medical services industries, etc.) to provide cheaper, more competitive products. The government will pay the balance if the insurance doesn't. That's basically a welfare to the healthcare industry.

Hopefully, when Obama mentioned that healthcare will be looked at again when he is re-elected, he means to introduce something more meaningful.
 
2012-06-28 09:33:27 PM  

Cargo: Weaver95: cchris_39: Weaver95:

Hey didn't notice that was you posting. Now that Obama has the "Republicans want to take away your healthcare" card to play, I don't see any way he loses in November. Do you?

After Romney cinched Once the GOP nomination primaries got rolling, Obama's re-election was in the bag.

FTFY

/for better accurate-ness


Yep. Goodbye Bush tax cuts, hello tax and spend free for all!
 
2012-06-28 09:38:34 PM  

Cargo: Weaver95: cchris_39: Weaver95:

Hey didn't notice that was you posting. Now that Obama has the "Republicans want to take away your healthcare" card to play, I don't see any way he loses in November. Do you?

After Romney cinched Once the GOP nomination primaries got rolling, Obama's re-election was in the bag.

FTFY

/for better accurate-ness


Yep. Goodbye Bush tax cuts, hello tax and spend free for all!
 
2012-06-28 09:48:25 PM  

dericwater: mark12A: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.

AND the Tea Party is all stirred up again and will gain new recruits.

Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America. No tort reform, no breaking the monopoly the AMA has on the supply of doctors, no innovation allowed in providing basic healthcare....really, a nurse and some really good software is all you really need to provide primary care healthcare, but the healthcare industry certainly won't allow it. And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff. The whole industry is a ripoff. And O-care does NOTHING to address it.

Something that can't continue won't, and healthcare in this country is on course for collapse. I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes....

You have some points of coherence.

1) Tort reform: non-issue. Cost of tort is less than 0.1% of health care costs

2) AMA monopoly: I agree completely, but the number of doctors isn't really an issue as much as what those doctors choose to do (specialties like plastic surgery instead of GP)

3) Innovation in providing basic healthcare: I would like to see more "jiffy lube" style basic healthcare provision. But at the same time, who can trust something like that? I don't even trust Jiffy Lube to give me 4.5 quarts of quality oil and not make some bogus claim that my headlight fluid is down a pint. If health care is for profit, what makes you think a for-profit healthcare provider won't screw you seven ways to Sunday by making erroneous claims about your health? It's already being done by thousands of scam artists already using stupid new agey jingoes like "raliean fields" or "chakra energy source" BS.

4) Nurse and good software: for 99% of the time, that's really what's needed. Doctors oppose this because it decrements their worth. It's an ego thing. Part of the problem of being a government is that you have to get everyone to accept some compromises. You can't "ram things down people's throats" as the GOP would like to claim (despite them being the biggest and boldest throat-rammers).

5) Cheap x-rays and such: I've always felt that the healthcare law that Obama and the Dems managed to get passed in 2010 was mostly a foot-in-the-door move, because it was so watered-down as to be meaningless, much like what you're claiming. There is absolutely no incentive for any of the health providers (pharmaceuticals, medical devices industries, medical services industries, etc.) to provide cheaper, more competitive products. The government will pay the balance if the insurance doesn't. That's basically a welfare to the healthcare industry.

Hopefully, when Obama mentioned that healthcare will be looked at again when he is re-elected, he means to introduce something more meaningful.


Actually, tort reform is bigger than you think, because it's not just the actual lawsuits, it's also the costs of insurance to cover doctors. I know several who have had to raise prices or have quit general practice because of the costs of the insurance.

In general, I think whatever overhaul we do has to start with first getting away from the "treat the symptom not the disease" and "cover your ass, run ALL the tests" mentalities is needed. Then we can talk about the high cost of medication and such, along with the unscrupulous behavior of the insurance companies (though insurance is not a right, so one should not have to have it), should go into it.

I think, if I were to make a change, I would first institute healthcare coops to bring group costs and negotiations to people without the corporate aspect, minimiizng the for-profit bs.

Then work to bring costs down through relaxing regulation enough to encourage competition. However, remember that countries like ours where costs are not fixed by government make up the difference for losses taken in countries where costs are controlled.

Subsidizing startups to manufacture generic drugs would be good, as well, to stop the shortages pushed by the preferance for more profitable patented drugs.

Finally, banning advertisement of drugs would be a good thing, since hopefully that would reduce the demand for these designer drugs, or the incentives for doctors to (over)prescribe them over generics.

But yes, let's instead tax people without healthcare coverage and all these other things, that will surely also fix the problems.
 
2012-06-28 09:58:20 PM  

Kit Fister: I know several who have had to raise prices or have quit general practice because of the costs of the insurance.


If a doctor has to fold up their GP practice because of malpractice insurance, I'm going to go ahead and guess that there is a very good reason behind said increase in malpractice premiums.
 
2012-06-28 10:27:39 PM  

b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.


I guess even passing Obamacare wasn't enough for you to find out what was in it.
 
2012-06-28 11:19:17 PM  

Man On Pink Corner: Kit Fister: I know several who have had to raise prices or have quit general practice because of the costs of the insurance.

If a doctor has to fold up their GP practice because of malpractice insurance, I'm going to go ahead and guess that there is a very good reason behind said increase in malpractice premiums.


It's a BS appeal to anecdotes, he doesn't know any such GPs. The total cost of the insurance premiums by definition includes all costs of tort AND frivolous lawsuits.

Here in Texas, it was under 0.5% before the GOP passed tort reform, and is the same now. Premiums did not drop, but there was a feeding frenzy of insurers getting into a now much more profitable market. But as a bonus, now doctors can't be sued for cutting the wrong woman's foobies off.
 
b3x
2012-06-28 11:47:50 PM  

Mithiwithi: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

I guess even passing Obamacare wasn't enough for you to find out what was in it.

A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

its on wikipedia, it must be true

 
2012-06-29 12:47:07 AM  
I see David found his thesaurus. Bless his little heart.
 
2012-06-29 01:13:41 AM  

westfalc: ...but I haven't seen anywhere where people will automatically get "free" insurance. My mom has to pay cash for medical care when she needs it; has no insurance. As I understand it, she'll be required to purchase health insurance and if she doesn't she'll be penalized/taxed. I haven't seen anywhere that she'd be "given" insurance by Obamacare.


Without knowing your mother's financial situation it's hard to address this concern. If she is unemployed, minimally employed, or a very low-wage worker then she will likely qualify for a subsidized health insurance. If she is self-employed, then she will be able to purchase a health insurance plan on the health exchanges at a rate much, much lower than what is currently available to the self-employed.

Those elements of the ACA will be fully implemented by 2014.

In addition, I'm seeing my rates go up substantially and more out of pocket cost after care.

Yes, insurance companies are greedy swine and have been jacking up rates to gobble up as much profit as they can before the elements of the ACA that force them to use 80% of insurance premiums to actually pay for healthcare and not yachts. Welcome to capitalism.

In addition (and with my employer as well), I hear talk that it may be less costly for companies to drop coverage altogether and pay the penalty. Any truth to that? Where's the win there?

There is some truth to that. If your employer is in a position where they are not competing with any other employers for employees, then they might drop coverage. But very few employers are in that kind of position! Basically if you're employer is in the position to do that, then they are also in a position to say "Hey, biatch, you're taking a massive pay cut starting tomorrow. Don't like it? Suck it! It's not like you can go work for someone else!"

What is a LOT more likely to happen is that employers might go to their employees and say "We're no longer going to offer healthcare coverage, instead we're giving you all a raise equal to our share of your health care costs. Here's a packet of information Human Resources has prepared for you about purchasing insurance on the exchange." They'll do this because it saves them a lot of money - its a lot less paperwork for them.

Then you'll go to the health exchange and purchase your own insurance. For many, many Americans this will work out as a net savings because they'll be able to pick and choose from different options - including options that fit their needs better than the one-size-fits-all option the employer was paying for.

And aren't healthcare costs going up higher, and faster, because of Obamcare. At a rate faster than if it hadn't been passed at all? How is this an improvement to our deficit?

They are temporarily spiking because of the long delay in the ACA coming fully online. Right now we are seeing the insurance providers engaging in a giant cash grab while they still can, this is one of the few really bad things about the ACA (and it's the fault of the "blue dog democrats" who have mostly been kicked out of office -- they're the ones who forced the delay to 2014). Once the exchanges are up and the spending caps are in place, the price for insurance plans will start to fall dramatically as two things occur: 1) You will no longer be paying the average extra $1000 a year to cover the uninsured who make use of emergency services because those people will have plans, and 2) competition between providers will encourage innovations that bring down prices. Once the exchanges go up, insurance companies are really going to have to fight for customers, which means we'll see price wars, and that will drive prices down.
 
2012-06-29 02:21:26 AM  

westfalc: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

I kind of see this the same way. I'm not sure of the real benefit to "Obamacare". I can see some benefits of parts, such as allowing kids to stay insured longer, not denying coverage (but can't they just charge more premiums if you're higher risk??), and things like that, but I haven't seen anywhere where people will automatically get "free" insurance. My mom has to pay cash for medical care when she needs it; has no insurance. As I understand it, she'll be required to purchase health insurance and if she doesn't she'll be penalized/taxed. I haven't seen anywhere that she'd be "given" insurance by Obamacare. In addition, I'm seeing my rates go up substantially and more out of pocket cost after care. Where's the win for me? All I really see are mandates that people have coverage or else. In addition (and with my employer as well), I hear talk that it may be less costly for companies to drop coverage altogether and pay the penalty. Any truth to that? Where's the win there? I'm really not seeing the "win" for anyone in Obamacare. From a principles standpoint I can see the humanity in wanting everyone covered, but all I see are "mandates" that everyone get covered, not actual coverage for anyone. Someone help me understand the good here??? And aren't healthcare costs going up higher, and faster, because of Obamcare. At a rate faster than if it hadn't been passed at all? How is this an improvement to our deficit?


I can't speak to anyone else, but...

The ACA requires that insurance companies not drop people because they suddenly become sick, and requires that they not turn down uninsured people due to "pre-existing conditions." For myself, this is a good thing because I've been chronically without insurance since being diagnosed with bipolar disorder--I can only get insurance if I have a job, and if their carrier covers mental health as well as regular health care. Currently I have no insurance, and if I were to get sick or crazy, I'd be on the County dime for my care.

Once this becomes law, I can't be rejected because of my mental health issues, which means I can get private insurance. That means if I get sick or crazy, the tax payers are not paying for my hospital bed. Furthermore, there have been periods I've been unable to work because, lacking insurance, I got too depressed to work (no insurance=no quality treatment). If I can get good treatment, I don't get depressed, I can continue to work, and thus have an income and contribute to the economy by working, buying things, paying rent, etc. If I'm too depressed, I can't work, hence have no money to buy things, pay rent, etc.

You take all the people like me out there who can't work, or can't work to their earning potential, because of chronic illness, and give them a chance to have decent insurance, and taking us off the County dime and onto decent health insurance...you will see an improvement in the economy. Not right away, but eventually.
 
2012-06-29 02:32:37 AM  

EnviroDude: When the people that are fined for refusal to buy insurance are arrested by the IRSfor tax evasion, it could be that they will appeal their arrests to the USSC under the new Romney court ( minus Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg). They will overturn Obamacare.


Welcome back. We were worried about you.
 
2012-06-29 03:18:41 AM  
Republicans will not rest until they defeat the evil black demon in the White House. It's personal, their own Moby Dick. They will sacrifice everything - their futures, their country, their families, even their lives - to claim total victory and destruction over their perceived nemesis, Barack Obama. They've lost sight of everything else, even their own humanity. They don't see Obama and Democrats, or anyone who's not them, as human. They're beasts, monsters that threaten their idea of what America should be. They're frightened, terrified, HORRIFIED at the nightmares their minds see around them, and they're going to try to destroy their nightmares by any means, even if they have to self-destruct the country to do it.

Obama is a sub-human invader from one of those mysterious little countries in Africa. Women are objects that should be subservient to men and have no say over their own lives. Homosexuals are demons trying to destroy God and marriage. Minorities are the trash of the world, only good for cluttering up America. The youth are parasites sucking the wealth and vitality from those who deserve it. The intellectual and non-religious are enemies of their precious God and Bible. This is how the GOP thinks. This is how they see the world.

And the truly frightening thing is, this is what many people want in control of the United States.
 
2012-06-29 03:21:58 AM  

Kit Fister: dericwater: mark12A: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.

AND the Tea Party is all stirred up again and will gain new recruits.

Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America. No tort reform, no breaking the monopoly the AMA has on the supply of doctors, no innovation allowed in providing basic healthcare....really, a nurse and some really good software is all you really need to provide primary care healthcare, but the healthcare industry certainly won't allow it. And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff. The whole industry is a ripoff. And O-care does NOTHING to address it.

Something that can't continue won't, and healthcare in this country is on course for collapse. I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes....

You have some points of coherence.

1) Tort reform: non-issue. Cost of tort is less than 0.1% of health care costs

2) AMA monopoly: I agree completely, but the number of doctors isn't really an issue as much as what those doctors choose to do (specialties like plastic surgery instead of GP)

3) Innovation in providing basic healthcare: I would like to see more "jiffy lube" style basic healthcare provision. But at the same time, who can trust something like that? I don't even trust Jiffy Lube to give me 4.5 quarts of ...


It's quite amusing how the three of you are lying your asses off and don't have a single clue how this works. But that's par for the course when all you can think of is the best way to mock and defeat your perceived enemies instead of caring about your fellow countrymen.
 
2012-06-29 03:41:15 AM  

Heron: Yeah it's crazy; Obama's got a better gun record than him but they just won't use it. Not only is this a great chance to skewer Romney; it's also a singular opportunity to call the NRA out for being more supportive of the Republican gun-grabber than the Democrat "hands off"-er. From a purely strategic point of view, not running with that seems like an unforced error. Hell, most Texas Dems I know a huge gun fans. Start running commercials featuring prominent gun-loving Dems calling Romney out on it and shaming the NRA. Not only would it be hilarious, but it would push the NRA and their defenders to start pointing out the org's support for down-ticket pro-gun Dems, so free publicity for state races.


I have a feeling that pointing out that Obama is more gun-friendly than Romney might alienate a lot of liberals. It might not be such a great strategy to call attention to it.
 
2012-06-29 03:59:15 AM  

b3x: Mithiwithi: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

I guess even passing Obamacare wasn't enough for you to find out what was in it.

A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

its on wikipedia, it must be true


Ah, I see. You can copy/paste from wikipedia, but you can't read. Let me help:

or waived in cases of financial hardship.
 
2012-06-29 07:29:22 AM  

mark12A: What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America.


Say that to the millions of people that can't be denied over pre-existing conditions anymore.

Ass.
 
2012-06-29 07:52:36 AM  

Kit Fister: In general, I think whatever overhaul we do has to start with first getting away from the "treat the symptom not the disease" and "cover your ass, run ALL the tests" mentalities is needed. Then we can talk about the high cost of medication and such, along with the unscrupulous behavior of the insurance companies (though insurance is not a right, so one should not have to have it), should go into it.


There's something even more primary than this. If you look at the countries with the best general doctors and healthcare -Germany, Japan, England, Canada- one thing you see is that their doctors aren't rich. Having the medical profession be a magnet for the ambitious who desire a plush life, instead of one for those interested in understanding and fixing the human body, creates all sorts of distortions that undermine the quality of care available in the US.
 
2012-06-29 07:57:36 AM  

ciberido: Heron: Yeah it's crazy; Obama's got a better gun record than him but they just won't use it. Not only is this a great chance to skewer Romney; it's also a singular opportunity to call the NRA out for being more supportive of the Republican gun-grabber than the Democrat "hands off"-er. From a purely strategic point of view, not running with that seems like an unforced error. Hell, most Texas Dems I know a huge gun fans. Start running commercials featuring prominent gun-loving Dems calling Romney out on it and shaming the NRA. Not only would it be hilarious, but it would push the NRA and their defenders to start pointing out the org's support for down-ticket pro-gun Dems, so free publicity for state races.

I have a feeling that pointing out that Obama is more gun-friendly than Romney might alienate a lot of liberals. It might not be such a great strategy to call attention to it.


I can see how that would be a concern, but I don't think it would be a big issue. Gun issues aren't make-or-break for most liberals the way abortion, civil rights, war, and drugs are, plnety of Dem voters are either pro or not anti gun, and the Dems in general are sort of starved for wins right now (thus all the hoorahing over this SC decision) which will make them more accepting of measures like this. Besides, you can limit the ads to run in districts and states with high gun ownership rates to minimize the chances you'd alienate less gun friendly supporters.
 
2012-06-29 08:00:47 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: It's personal, their own Moby Dick. They will sacrifice everything - their futures, their country, their families, even their lives - to claim total victory and destruction over their perceived nemesis, Barack Obama.


I think that's going a bit far. There's certainly been plenty of Republican vitriol directed at Obama, and a large helping of conspiratorial insanity has certainly come with it, but we've yet to see Republicans strapping bombs to their ample waistlines and charging the White House gates. Accusing them of a murderous, suicidal desire to unseat Obama is hyperbolic.
 
2012-06-29 08:28:34 AM  

mark12A: Ummm, Kinko's had always worked for me..maybe you're a dick or something...


no, he's the guy who photocopies his dick.
 
2012-06-29 08:42:38 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Kit Fister: dericwater: mark12A: Ironically, it's a very conservative opinion. It limits the Commerce Clause, maintains 70 years of New Deal precedent, hamstrings Federal power in using their disbursements to states, and upholds a law that 6 years ago would be hailed as a Republican triumph.

THIS. Plus, the court allows it through the gov's current power to tax, so Rommster can call it the greatest Tax increase in American History, brought to you by the Dems. Great campaign ad.

AND the Tea Party is all stirred up again and will gain new recruits.

Keep mindlessly cheering on your team, you Dem Party whores of Farkistan. Your tears will be like nectar to me in 2013.

What's really sad is Obamacare did NOTHING to actually fix healthcare in America. No tort reform, no breaking the monopoly the AMA has on the supply of doctors, no innovation allowed in providing basic healthcare....really, a nurse and some really good software is all you really need to provide primary care healthcare, but the healthcare industry certainly won't allow it. And getting X-rays should be every bit as cheap and easy as getting copies at Kinkos', but it ain't. It's a ripoff. The whole industry is a ripoff. And O-care does NOTHING to address it.

Something that can't continue won't, and healthcare in this country is on course for collapse. I plan to get real friendly with my horse's Vet. He'll be able provide primary care for me real cheap and convenient when the collapse comes....

You have some points of coherence.

1) Tort reform: non-issue. Cost of tort is less than 0.1% of health care costs

2) AMA monopoly: I agree completely, but the number of doctors isn't really an issue as much as what those doctors choose to do (specialties like plastic surgery instead of GP)

3) Innovation in providing basic healthcare: I would like to see more "jiffy lube" style basic healthcare provision. But at the same time, who can trust something like that? I don't even trust Jiffy Lube to give me 4.5 quarts of ...

It's quite amusing how the three of you are lying your asses off and don't have a single clue how this works. But that's par for the course when all you can think of is the best way to mock and defeat your perceived enemies instead of caring about your fellow countrymen.


I've read the bill. Have you? Show me where I'm lying my ass off (hint: I'm not), and explain exactly what it is that this does?
 
2012-06-29 08:46:49 AM  

Heron: ciberido: Heron: Yeah it's crazy; Obama's got a better gun record than him but they just won't use it. Not only is this a great chance to skewer Romney; it's also a singular opportunity to call the NRA out for being more supportive of the Republican gun-grabber than the Democrat "hands off"-er. From a purely strategic point of view, not running with that seems like an unforced error. Hell, most Texas Dems I know a huge gun fans. Start running commercials featuring prominent gun-loving Dems calling Romney out on it and shaming the NRA. Not only would it be hilarious, but it would push the NRA and their defenders to start pointing out the org's support for down-ticket pro-gun Dems, so free publicity for state races.

I have a feeling that pointing out that Obama is more gun-friendly than Romney might alienate a lot of liberals. It might not be such a great strategy to call attention to it.

I can see how that would be a concern, but I don't think it would be a big issue. Gun issues aren't make-or-break for most liberals the way abortion, civil rights, war, and drugs are, plnety of Dem voters are either pro or not anti gun, and the Dems in general are sort of starved for wins right now (thus all the hoorahing over this SC decision) which will make them more accepting of measures like this. Besides, you can limit the ads to run in districts and states with high gun ownership rates to minimize the chances you'd alienate less gun friendly supporters.


There are certainly cores of anti-gun folk who are quite rabid. However, if the actual data tells us anything, it's that the vast majority of people don't care, considering they have much larger issues to worry about.

And, like those opposing the healthcare bill, the folks who are rabidly anti-gun are equally living in a distorted reality.
 
2012-06-29 11:24:44 AM  

Paris1127: I was unaware that Frum is Canadian...


Not just Canadian, but the son of one of Canada's most respected journalists, who was probably the toughest interviewer I've ever seen. The 10 storey atrium at the Canadian Broadcast Centre, home of the CBC, is the Barbara Frum Atrium. His sister, Linda Frum, is also a Conservative member of the Canadian Senate.
 
2012-06-29 12:30:17 PM  
Oh shiat.... they bought it?
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-29 12:32:59 PM  

westfalc: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

I kind of see this the same way. I'm not sure of the real benefit to "Obamacare". I can see some benefits of parts, such as allowing kids to stay insured longer, not denying coverage (but can't they just charge more premiums if you're higher risk??), and things like that, but I haven't seen anywhere where people will automatically get "free" insurance. My mom has to pay cash for medical care when she needs it; has no insurance. As I understand it, she'll be required to purchase health insurance and if she doesn't she'll be penalized/taxed. I haven't seen anywhere that she'd be "given" insurance by Obamacare. In addition, I'm seeing my rates go up substantially and more out of pocket cost after care. Where's the win for me? All I really see are mandates that people have coverage or else. In addition (and with my employer as well), I hear talk that it may be less costly for companies to drop coverage altogether and pay the penalty. Any truth to that? Where's the win there? I'm really not seeing the "win" for anyone in Obamacare. From a principles standpoint I can see the humanity in wanting everyone covered, but all I see are "mandates" that everyone get covered, not actual coverage for anyone. Someone help me understand the good here??? And aren't healthcare costs going up higher, and faster, because of Obamcare. At a rate faster than if it hadn't been passed at all? How is this an improvement to our deficit?


As a wannabe entrepreneur with pre-existing conditions (in myself and my household), I'm getting a kick.

Pre-existing conditions don't have to be canceraids to make you uninsurable. A simple and inexpensive-to-treat thyroid problem, for example, will do it.

Insurers will be required to rate everyone the same (modulo a few variables like age and smokerhood). So rates will go up for the healthy and down (maybe) for the sick.

IIRC the individual mandate penalty is $95 a year. My best option for health insurance for my family of 4 is $1100/month employer-sponsored coverage. So I'm skeptical that the mandate will serve its intended purpose (getting everyone in the pool).

There will be subsidies for lower-to-middle-income folks to defray the cost of buying insurance. I'd be surprised if they were generous enough.

Of course, the real underlying problem is never-ending 10%-a-year growth in the cost of healthcare. If that doesn't get fixed we're all screwed, regardless.
 
2012-06-29 01:08:49 PM  

Mr. Right: Heraclitus: Mr. Right: gunga galunga: My manager has been going on about how the communists and their communist leader has finally managed to ruin the country.

His tears are delicious.

How will they taste when the cost of keeping you employed rises above your ability to produce and he lays you off?

You really fail to see how this works. ACA will (eventually) REDUCE the amount of responsibility to employers

And I have some great beach property right on the ocean to sell you. In Nevada. If you act fast, I'll throw in the Brooklyn Bridge.


If there is a public option, private employers will dump insured employees by simply raising premiums and deductibles so that only management can afford it, just like they did with Medicare part D. Very few Medicare-eligible patients keep both their private employer's insurance and Medicare because the rates are ridiculous. Any mid to large company will gladly pay 2k to weasel out of paying health insurance, a benefit employers were all too willing to give unions in lieu of raises back in the day. All this said, however, there is no way our corrupted government can provide current standards of treatment for less cost than private medicine can. Not even if they eliminate insurance companies and pharmacy benefit managers like Express Scripts, Medco and Caremark, who offer smoke and mirrors to appear as if they lower costs. Those guys profit an average $10 a prescription for setting up a computer server to tell me what to charge a patient.
 
b3x
2012-06-29 01:50:23 PM  

Mithiwithi: b3x: Mithiwithi: b3x: I honestly don't see how penalizing people for not being able to afford something is a win.

I guess even passing Obamacare wasn't enough for you to find out what was in it.

A shared responsibility requirement, commonly called an individual mandate,requires that all persons not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

its on wikipedia, it must be true

Ah, I see. You can copy/paste from wikipedia, but you can't read. Let me help:

or waived in cases of financial hardship.


oh ... so anyone who cannot afford to pay healthcare, is automatically a "financial hardship"?

// insert citation needed pic ...
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report